What Is Human Consciousness?

soulresearchinstitute.org

Human beings have been given the wonderful gift of consciousness. We are aware of ourselves and our environment. We are able to appreciate the aesthetic beauties of the earth. We can readily perceive the past — or think we can — and the present and the future. We have the ability to perceive good and evil.

But what are the origins of human consciousness? How and when did we come to have this marvelous gift?

Man Looks at the Problem

Evolutionists have proposed to explain the origin of the physical being called man. But evolution offers no viable explanation for the existence of consciousness — not even the vastly inferior animal consciousness that was before man’s. Eminent scientist and Nobel prize winner, Sir John Eccles, has said:

“The genetic code and natural selection explains quite a lot. But not how I came to exist. It doesn’t explain even the origin of consciousness, even animal consciousness. If you look at the most modern texts on evolution you find nothing about mind and consciousness. They assume that it just comes automatically with the development of the brain. But that’s not an answer” (International Herald Tribune, March 31, 1981).

But if evolutionists cannot really explain the existence of consciousness, the Holy Scriptures do.

God Gives the Answer

The biblical book of Job contains some of the most beautiful poetic language in English literature. But the intrinsic worth of this ancient work goes far beyond mere beauty of language. It records a conversation that the man Job had with the Creator God.

The Almighty had asked the patriarch Job: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements — surely you know!” (Job 38:4-5, RSV).

These verses reveal that intelligence vastly superior to man’s was present at the time of creation. Further, the same verses show that God possessed by his very nature the marvelous attribute of consciousness. Man was nowhere around at the time. He took no part in the creation work.

Centuries after Job died the prophet Isaiah was privileged to record God’s Word to the children of Israel in a similar vein. “Thus saith the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth — Who was with me?” (Isaiah 44:24).

Behemoth: Largest And Strongest Land Animal In Man’s World!

eaudrey.com

What is the mysterious animal called “behemoth” in Job 40:15-24? Could this terrible beast be the hippopotamus we know today, as some commentators assume? Or some other creature?

You’ll be shocked when you see the scientific confirmation of what has been in God’s Word for over 3500 years!

In 1911 a British scientist was astounded when he found a few HUGE bones from what appeared to be an enormous type of rhinoceros. The bones were of such GIANT size they even dwarfed an elephant’s bones! He named the animal “Baluchitherium” (ba loo” chithee’ ri um).

Eleven years later, another scientist this time an American, was elated when he found three partial skeletons of “Baluchitherium”. The skeletal remains were hurried to New York where they were assembled. The results were nothing short of amazing!

The huge creature was confirmed to be an extinct, gigantic, apparently hornless rhinoceros! — a creature which fits the picture given of the Biblical “behemoth” mentioned in Job! Let us notice the startling comparison between the now-extinct “Baluchitherium” and the enigmatic creature of Job 40:15-24 which has perplexed Biblical scholars for ages.

Begin with Job 40:15: “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee: he eateth grass like an ox.” What does this tell us?

First, God made a distinct creation of plants, including grass, and animals for the benefit and pleasure of man. The warm-blooded animals and the grasses and herbs were FIRST made when man was made — about 6000 years ago (Gen. 1:24-25). Evolutionists have always been puzzled at the fact that this kind of vegetation appeared so late in geological history.

Now notice again Job 40:15: “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee ….” Here is an animal God made when man was made. Behemoth did not exist in the pre-Adamic world which was filled with giant dinosaurs and other types of strange creatures. Behemoth was an unique animal created with man — and for a purpose, as we shall see later!

God, The Failed Hypothesis?

I recently ran across a book entitled: God, the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. It is the author’s conclusion, after examining the scientific data relating to every attribute, that the empirical scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the existence of any being possessing any of them. In short, none of the standard attributes accepted by most believers as being true about their god can be salvaged in light of known facts about the universe. This, in turn, prevents any rational, reasonable, or justified belief in such a god from being salvaged.

Life, he says, was not designed, it evolved naturally. The universe was not created, it arose naturally. Morality was not divinely created, it evolved naturally. The universe was not fine-tuned, it’s just what we would expect to find.

As usual, this type of book rambles about on with a crude sense of cynicism, arrogance and hostility wrapped up in the cloak of science. I did not however find that the author knew much about theology, philosophy and history and found at least a dozen logical fallacies and false generalizations.

For example, the arguement that no indisputable evidence of God has been found in nature, therefore God must not exist is futile, since God is spiritual and cannot be seen by human eyes (Col. 1:15). God is everywhere in nature, since it is His creation. He says in Rom. 1:20:

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

“The expression “his invisible things” refers to those things which cannot be perceived in an intellectual way, by the faculty of the understanding; things which may be known of him, though not discoverable by the eye. We judge of the objects around us by the senses, the sight, the touch, the ear, etc. Though we can’t judge God this way, we may come to the knowledge of him by, ‘his eternal power and Godhead, by means of the material universe which he has formed. The argument implies that is enough to leave mankind without any excuse for its ignorance.” (Albert Barnes’ Notes On The Bible).

So, the power of God is evident in invisible things, and yet clearly seen in creation. The workman is known by his work. The variety, multitude, order, beauty, harmony, different nature, and excellency of the things that are made, the direction of them to certain ends, and the concurrence of all the parts to the good and beauty of the whole,  abundantly prove a Creator and his eternal power and Godhead. The proof is not weakened because we don’t see the process of creation constantly going on. It is rather augmented by the fact that he sustains all things, and continually controls the vast masses of matter in the material world.

God has given us so much clear evidence of his existence and claims, that man is without excuse for his denial. We have all the modern discoveries of astronomy, and no one thing more proves the stupidity of people, than the sad forgetfulness of Him that made the heavens and the earth.

Is archaeological proof lacking?

The book also argues that no archaeological evidence exists of a certain Biblical person, place or thing, therefore he/she or it must be mythical. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt. This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not.

Contrarily, when archaeological findings show “supposed”proof of  “discrepancies,”  we find when these are examined in detail, it is found that the problems lie with misinterpretation of evidence, lack of evidence, or poor scholarship, and not with the Bible.

Although it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the discoveries of archahaeology since the mid-1800s have certainly demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative.

Here are some examples:

• The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Gen. 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
• The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
• Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon’s wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon’s prosperity was entirely feasible.
• It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Is. 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon’s palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Is. 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
• Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzarr was Nabonidus’ son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make  Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

Source: Christiananswers.net

The universally accepted nature of science is that it is always evolving, with old theories and hypothesis being revised or discarded in favour of new ones, on the basis of the latest evidence. Therefore scientists do not believe in absolute proof, because new evidence might turn up which alters an old model, theory or law.

However, the existence of God can be proven. It is evident in the power of His creation; it is evident through archaeological evidence; through records of accounts written even after the facts by enemies of Christ, by the Roman Catholic church; it is evident by faith; and certainly will be evident through eschatological verification – when Christ returns, or when we die – whichever comes first. We will then have conclusive proof.

I find it pitiful that evolutionists or atheists believe that religion is a mere superstition: irrational folk beliefs that arose from fear and the human need for meaning and control of our surroundings. Science and our ability to control our environment has supposedly made us the captain of our own fate – no need for God anymore. But our control is a mere illusion. God says:

“For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (I Pet. 1:24-25)

So you see, we have only a few years on this earth and then we die. Without God, we have no hope, no future, no reality. It is only the word of God which is truth (John 17:17), not the ego filled vanity of atheistic nonsense. If all we have is hope in the present life, we are indeed hopeless.

But God promises eternal life, and He (unlike man), cannot lie (Tit. 1:2). I’ll take that statement above the fables foisted upon man by evolutionary science. At least I know where I’m going.

The Myth Of The Geological Time Scale!

Scientists say evolution is a very slow process. Therefore the evolutionist, in order to prove his theory, creates different “eons, eras, periods, epochs and ages” to allow for what he considers sufficient time for evolution to occur. However, these vast theoretical units of time allowed for in the geological time scale do not represent a succession of life forms in successive eras. The show instead, the relative order in which life died died during two great worldwide destructions – both which are mentioned in the Bible.

So called geological eras

Is This Time Scale Really Proof? - http://www.daviddarling.info

What geologists label the “Cenozoic Era” is in reality the age of man’s existence on the earth. It is characterized by the abundance of animals and plants essential for human survival. Livestock and other mammals, and fish and fowl, which provide meat for man, are found buried in this strata.

Fruits, vegetables and grains are entirely missing from the pre-Adamic or “pre-Cenozoic” world. All edible food that is essential for man suddenly appears in the era scientists have dubbed “Cenozoic.” Even the atmosphere, the climate, the seasons and the modern topography – including the present limits of the oceans – are characteristic only of the Cenozoic era.

Our world, the so called Cenozoic, was re-fashioned from the shambles left after Lucifer’s rebellion against God. Fossils found in so called Cenozoic rocks are generally due to the rapid burial of life forms at the time of Noah’s flood (Genesis Seven & Eight) or other events since man’s creation 6000 years ago.

These Cenozoic deposits are found above other earlier strata laid down in a terrifying catastrophe that befell the world before man existed. The deposits of that earlier world end with the first “time of great dying.””

Mesozoic and Paleozoic eras

Fossil remains from the pre-Adamic world are found buried in a relative order – with the rocks on the bottom generally containing sea life – because the sea life was first destroyed and buried. Then later, as the terrifying destruction of life enveloped the land, the dinosaurs and other  land life forms were covered by heavy sediments from raging water. These last deposits of the pre-Adamic world, the so called “Mesozoic Era,” are termed “Cretaceous.” Some Cretaceous strata have been mislabeled and, in reality, belong in the Cenozoic, or age of man.

listverse.com

The Mesozoic world – the time before man’s creation – was so characterized by dinosaurs and other reptiles that  that scientists have rightly called it the  “Age of Reptiles.” Giant reptiles – some weighing up to 40 tons – not only roamed the land, but flew in the air, while yet others excelled the fishes in the sea. Gigantic insects filled the air. Giant tree ferns, horsetails, club mosses, cycads and conifers covered the face of the earth, creating vast forests unlike any we know today.

In that world were no true mammals, no fish with true scales, no feathered fowl, no grass, no grains or fruits for man. Man was not then in existence.

The so-called “Paleozoic” rocks – layers containing sea life – therefore do NOT represent a separate time apart from the Mesozoic. Paleozoic rocks merely contain the buried remains of sea life that was first to be destroyed consequent to Lucifer’s rebellion. The characteristic fossils found in Paleozoic rocks are ammonites, trilobites, sea scorpions, sharks and other inedible fishes. Many were giant varieties.

This was an entire world unfit for human habitation and enjoyment. All life was suddenly buried. Most life forms were never re-created when God re-formed the earth and made this world habitable for man (Gen. 1:2-31).

The Origin of Life: Why Complex Life Forms In "Lowest" Fossil Strata?

pigeonchess.com

Can Evolutionists explain the sudden appearance of complex life forms in the “lowest” fossil strata?

Five Rejected Theories

Evolutionists claim their record is destroyed. Yet, true men of science among them have inadvertently given us the following facts. They list five theories for the lack of preservation of the life which they believe existed in the pre-Cambrian—then they take each in its turn and disprove it.

The question: Why are there no fossils in the pre-Cambrian rocks? They  answer with a theory and then give objections
which disprove the theory. Here are their theories and their objections.

Theory no. 1: All life was destroyed by the metamorphism of the rocks in which they occurred.

Objection: 90% of pre-Cambrian rocks are schists, gneiss and marble, distorted by heat and pressure, but the remaining 10% are not. The remaining 10% should contain fossils if evolution were true.

Theory no. 2 Life oniy existed in those areas which were metamorphosed.

Objection: This would be very fortunate for the theory of evolution but is most improbable due to the widespread occurrence of the unmetamorphosed areas which were certainly accessible to ocean life and thus ought to contain fossils.

Theory no. 3: The oceans were too acid for calcium to be used for shells and thus no trace of the animal was preserved.

Objection: The oceans were more likely fresh to begin with. Also, siliceous and chitinous skeletons could have been formed and preserved apart from the calcium requirement. Such types are found in the Cambrian rocks.

Theory no. 4:  There wasn’t enough calcium in the ocean for the animals to have shells.

Objection: Limestone layers 50,000 feet (?) thick were deposited in this early strata showing an abundance of calcium.

Theory no. 5: Life forms lived only in the upper zones of the ocean at first and had no hard parts.

Objection: Either they became lazy, grew hard parts, and being heavier settled to the bottom, or else they found the ocean bottom first, then became lazy in their new environment and grew hard parts. Thus the sudden appearance of fossils. Objections: For life to spend many millions of years in the uppermosr portions of the ocean without finding shore, shallow water or ocean bottom is nothing short of ridiculous. Even after accepting such an idea the problem remains as to why suddenly many forms of life should take on complete skeletons with no intermediate “evolutionary steps.” No transitional forms are found. Each species thus learned to develop its hard shell suddenly!

A great number of species occur together with hard shells in the lower Cambrian. All must have “learned” the secret of hard shell development simultaneously. Thus this fifth theory is also completely lacking in facts, logic and piain good judgment.

Why Men Can’t See

Thus at present scientists have left themselves without an explanation for the complex, numerous “advanced” life forms of the Cambrian rocks and the complete absence of life in the layer usually beneath it. In rejecting the Scriptural account ( Genesis 1 ) as evidence they find themselves without any explanation.

The correct conclusion you ought to have drawn from the evidence presented is that in the beginning life forms were created complex as we find them; then at a later date they were buried in the rocks by catastrophic upheavals of earth and water. They did not evolve to that complex stage as the evolutionary theory demands.

Since the days of Darwin, men have clung tenaciously to the theory he published but never proved, even to himself. Why? Because to believe otherwise would in the end lead to the acknowledgement of the Creator revealed in the Bible.

To acknowledge this Creator would be to consenr that certain obligations might be due Him. It would also put these educated men in the rather uncomfortable place of having a rival whose knowledge was as far superior to theirs as wisdom is to foolishness. Intellectual pride would have to vanish.

Man’s mind, the carnal mind he is born with, is enmity against God (Romans 8:7). It will not think rationally when faced with the Biblical facts proving the existence of a Creator who has revealed Himself to man through the scriptures.

Do you know the mystery of this little creature? Here is evidence that each creature produces after its own kind—that it doesn’t become a different, more advanced kind.

Sir Archibald Geikie, F.R.S., ardent evolutionist admits that though “Brachipod species of the genera Lingula are the oldest known molluscs . . . [they] are still represented by living species ¡n the ocean. They have persisted with but little change.during the whole of geological time, from the early Paleiozoic periods downwards, for the living shells do not appear to indicate any marked divergence from the earliest forms.” (From Geology by Geiki)

It is quite possible that had no Bible ever been written proclaiming the existence of our Creator, that the efforts of scientists in every field would have quickly discovered the facts of creation. Had no floods ever been described in the Scriptures, historians and archeologists alike would have discovered the evidence, reasoned correctly with it and arrived at the correct historical account of the earth. Geologists would have studied the fossil strata and held forth the truth to the world with fervor equal to that with which they now propagate the godless doctrine of evolution.

But the human mind is rebellious against God; it will not willingly subject itself to the law of God; neither will it acknowledge that a revealed history of the earth and life forms is correct. Evolution thus becomes the opiate of the atheist to distort his vision and keep him from seeing his God.

The carnal mind cannot accept God. It must cling to this “favorite belief” that life came into being by some slow natural process.

Where Is the Evolutionary Tree?

The roots from the tree of evolution disappear in our search for the evolution of life from dead matter. The stump vanishes when we ask for those “few, simple, primitive” life forms. The thirteen great branches, the 13 phyla into which all animals are classified, fade away when we find all represented in the earliest fossil strata. Even the smaller branches vanish when we see this Cambrian life “already evolved” into classes, orders, genera, and species.

It’s about time to ask where is the tree? The roots, ttunk and branches are gone. Only the twigs remain. Blood relation between individuals and many so called species of the Cambrian strata is certain. Further speculation is in the realm of philosophy, not true science. This tree of evolution is thus shown to be but a dream in the minds of men and like a dream it will disappear for them when their eyes are opened.

Questions On Evolution: Scientific Fact Or Science Fiction?

http://www.twainquotes.com

The origin of life is the least understood biological problem.

While acknowledging this fact, evolutionists go on to believe as an article of faith that life came into existence on this planet spontaneously from nonliving matter by chemical processes. They further accept as an article of faith that life progressively evolved by blind chance into the vast array of living things we see today. This belief is claimed to be “fact.” Those who do not accept this “fact” are ridiculed as ignorant and unscientific.

Is evolution scientific fact, or is it science fiction? The odds are fantastic against even very “simple” constituents of living organisms occurring by chance. And there is an even greater improbability of such constituents producing living organisms by chance.

In particular consider a protein consisting of a chain of about 100 amino acids. If all the known stars in the universe had 10 earths, and if all the earths had oceans of “amino acid soup,” and if all the amino acids linked up in chains 100 acids long every second for the entire estimated history of the universe, even then the chance occurrence of a given very simple protein would be extremely improbable.  As such, below you will find answered a number of the more common evolutionary counterarguments, as well as additional queries:

• There may be many combinations of amino acids that would work. So the probability of their forming by chance would be much greater than that of a specific combination.

No scientific experimentation has shown that a different combination of amino acids could be substituted for a given protein and still perform exactly the same way. The marvelous complexity of the specific functions performed by the combination that does work in nature demands the correct sequence of amino acids to be present in each case. (We are aware, of course, that various proteins may be consumed and reassembled into other proteins by an existing living organism.)

A given life form requires specific combinations of specific molecules. Just any arbitrary random combination will not work. It is much like a combination lock. If you do not know the combination, you can spin numbers at random to try to open the lock. You may spin perfectly good numbers. They might even work on some other lock at some other time and in some other place. But if they do not open the given lock — the one you are trying to open — it does not do you a bit of good.

Now if you would calculate the probability of finding the right combination by random spinning, the probability depends only on the available numbers for the given lock. The probability has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not some other combinations may open some other locks.

• If you do not specify which protein, we are therefore only dealing in possibilities not probabilities.

You should use the standard mathematical definition of probability as applicable to the problem under discussion. The probability of a given protein of 100 amino acids occurring by chance is 10-130. The fact that that a specific one was not identified is irrelevant. If it were a more technical article, a  specified complicated protein like hemoglobin, would be pointed out, and there would be used essentially the same line of reasoning. The point is that even the supposedly simplest components found in living things are actually very complex. Their existence cannot be explained on the basis of blind chance.

• The experiments of Stanley L. Miller in the 1950s showed that the “primeval soup” of the sea would contain surprisingly large quantities of the building blocks of life: amino acids, nucleotides, etc.

Whether or not this is the case does not matter. In fact, we can be even more generous than Mr. Miller by giving each star in the universe 10 “earths” and each “earth” an ocean of “primeval soup” mixed to the evolutionists’ recipe. Nevertheless, it did not make the evolution of even one “simple” protein probable.

• The fundamental building molecules are not proteins but DNA.

The attempt to use DNA in the synthesis of proteins only makes the situation worse for evolution. DNA is even more unlikely to come into existence by chance than protein is. It would be like someone claiming that a table of logarithms came into existence by being generated by a computer that, in turn, came into existence by chance.

• Smaller self-replicating chains could form and progress in small steps to produce longer and longer chains.

There are a number of difficulties with such a model. First of all, scientists have not found any evidence of such occurring in nature. Second, even if it could occur, the probabilities of ending up with the right sequence, after all the small steps, would still be immeasurably small by essentially the same reasoning given in the article. Third, what would be the role or purpose of such intermediate chains? Why and how would they survive to produce more complicated chains? Certainly, there is no evidence of the existence of intermediate chains being somehow related to intermediate species.

• Natural selection is an established theory. The hypothesis of Darwin has been confirmed by experimental work.

There is not necessarily a disagreement with this — up to a point. But natural selection can only explain the survival of the fittest. It does not explain the arrival of the fittest. 

• Natural selection is adequate to explain the variety of living things we see today.

Even evolutionists do not make this claim. They require spontaneous generation and mutations (at the very least) in addition to natural selection.

• But this does not rule out mutation as a mechanism for improvement when combined with natural selection. For example, a chess player might be competing against many opponents whose starting position is on occasion changed — slightly, randomly. Then it might be supposed that those opponents with the better starting positions are more likely to win. Suppose the losers drop out and the winners play many further games (dropping out only if they lose all games from the previous starting position, the chance of a random change continuing). Then might it not be reasoned that after much time, the starting positions in use might improve?

The analogy regarding starting positions in a chess game is interesting. The reasoning applied, however, is fallacious on several grounds. Even if the starting positions are being changed slightly, but randomly, there is no guarantee that an improved starting position that results in a winner one time will result in an improved starting position the next game. Quite the contrary, a small modification of an excellent starting position could conceivably be a disastrous starting position.

Moreover, the chess players are presumably intelligent beings. They perform at varying skill levels. So it makes no sense to attribute their characteristics to that of a blind chance mechanism of mutations and natural selection.

The theory of probability applies only to chance phenomena and not to deterministic phenomena. For example, it would be nonsense to ask the question: “What is the probability I will paint my house green?” There is no answer. If I want to paint it green, I will. If I don’t, I won’t. Similarly, the theory of probability cannot be applied to deterministic games such as chess or checkers.

On the other hand, the theory of evolution is based on the assumption that living forms came into existence from nonliving matter by chance. It is amazingly improbable that even the simplest constituents of living things come into existence by chance. This is a valid application of probability.

• Mutations are like errors in the genetic code. It is this random error-making in the genetic machinery that furnishes evolution with the stuff of creative change.

No one is saying that mutations could not account for some changes in the structure or appearance of organisms. But mutations cannot produce genuinely new forms of life. While minor variations in appearance or structure might be produced by mutations, there is no evidence whatsoever that mutations produce the kind of quantum leaps required by the theory of evolution.

• The fossil record clearly shows evolution has taken place.

The fossil record provides considerable evidence that evolution did not occur. Consider the facts. Evolution would require a fossil record that shows the gradual changing of one species to another with numerous transitional forms. But instead the fossil record shows broad gaps between fossil species for which there are no intermediate forms.

Note this startling admission of an evolutionist:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid” (Macro-evolution: Pattern and Process, Steven M. Stanley, page 39).

• Scientists have created life. They made a simple organism that could eat oil spills in the ocean and then die out for lack of food.

Actually, these organisms were not created from nonliving matter. They were developed from existing living organisms through genetics. These genetic engineers have no more claim to creating life than a dog breeder does.

• You are presenting to your readers the fallacy that science is a finished product and that whatever is speculative in science is therefore wrong.

You have probably all heard someone at one time or another say something like, “Science tells us that…”  and then they make some claim or other.  But science doesn’t tell us anything because it is a mechanism, a method, a tool.  Science doesn’t provide conclusions; humans do.  Those conclusions can be arrived at logically, honestly and accurately  or  irrationally, dishonestly and carelessly—that depends on the scientist.  The Scientific Method involves five steps:

1. Observation – collecting data
2. Hypothesis – forming a preliminary possible explanation of the data;
3. Testing – test the hypothesis by collecting more data, using a control
4. Results – interpreting the results of the test and deciding if the hypothesis should be rejected.  The hypothesis is rejected if the results contradict it, showing that it is wrong.
5. Conclusion – stating a conclusion that can be evaluated independently by others using this same method.

After years of scrutiny, certain observed phenomena  (such as gravity)  become established as law.  The problem occurs when scientists usurp the name of science to make authoritative statements of philosophy.  Unfortunately, scientists are not always very clear as to when they are engaging in science, and when they are engaging in philosophy.  Philosophy  can be both reasonable and rational, but it is not scientific, by definition,  because it is not an observable phenomenon  in the physical world.

Many scientists cheerfully admit that they are speculating. We have no complaint with scientific speculation as long as such is truthfully identified as speculation. Evolutionists however do not admit that the theory of evolution is speculative. Instead, they palm off speculation as fact. In the March 23, 1981, issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Rolf M. Sinclair, a physicist at the U.S. National Science Foundation, is quoted as follows:

“The fact of evolution is as incontrovertible as the fact that the earth is spherical rather than flat.”

The author and biochemist Isaac Asimov stated:

“Scientists have no choice but to consider evolution a fact” (“The Genesis War,” Science Digest, October, 1981, page 85).

“Having the fact of evolution before us … ” (ibid., page 85).

“Evolution is a fact … ” (ibid., page 87).

Honestly, does that sound like speculation to you?

• Your acceptance of God’s existence is not based on rational thinking. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines faith or belief in God as a “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”

A dictionary is not an arbiter of truth. Actually, dictionaries give several definitions of faith. Not every dictionary definition of faith demands the exclusion of logic, reasoning or material evidence. True faith, the kind of faith spoken of in the Bible, is not a blind, superstitious, illogical faith. It is a faith based on “evidence of things not seen” and is in harmony with logic, reason and the factual world.

• Where did God come from? Since the creator of the universe would have to be more “complicated” than the universe itself, the probability of God coming into existence by chance would be less than the probability of the universe coming into existence by chance.

This is a popular argument. It has two fundamental flaws.

First of all, an Eternal Being does not need to come into existence, since he has always existed. It makes no sense to ask: “What is the probability that a Being, who always existed, came into existence?” The question is inherently contradictory.

Second, eternal existence is not a chance phenomenon. Someone or something either always existed or did not always exist. No probability is involved. For this reason we cannot apply probability to questions such as, “Does God exist?” or “Has the universe always existed?” 

• Why could not God have chosen to use evolution to produce life forms we see in the world?

Where does a 500-pound gorilla sit? Wherever he wants. How did an Eternal God create life? Obviously, however he wanted! Would a superintelligent, superpowerful Divine Being use a chaotic, random, haphazard process such as evolution to create life?  Here is a quote the eminent scientist Sir Fred Hoyle:

“The thought occurred to me one day that the human chemical industry doesn’t chance on its products by throwing chemicals at random into a stewpot. To suggest to the research department [of a chemical corporation] that it should proceed in such a fashion would be thought ridiculous” (Engineering and Science, November, 1981, page 12).

This leading scientist, who would have liked to believe in evolution and who was seeking the origin of life in the blind forces of nature, finally had to conclude:

“A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question” (ibid., page 12).

What about you? Do you believe that “simple” life forms came into existence by blind chance in a cosmic chemical stewpot? Do you further believe that such simple living things gradually developed such marvelously intricate structures as hearts, lungs, eyes and brains through “random errors in the genetic code”?

The physical evidence from the factual world leads to only one conclusion — living things had to be planned, designed and created by a Supreme Being!

• Could A Simple Protein Not Form By Chance?

Proteins are essential molecules for the existence of physical life. Protein molecules consist of chains of chemical compounds called amino acids. A relatively simple protein would consist of a chain of about 100 amino acids.

Suppose we have a “soup” full of amino acids. We want these acids to link up at random to form a protein consisting of 100 amino acids. How many different combinations are there?

There are on earth 20 different types of amino acids available to form proteins. If we wanted a chain of two such acids, there would be 20 possibilities for the first acid and 20 for the second — or 20 x 20 =400 possibilities. If we wanted a chain of three such acids, there would be20 x 20 x 20 = 8,000 possibilities.

For a protein consisting of a chain of 100 acids, therefore, we have 20 x 20 x. … x 20 = 20100 possibilities. But 20100 is approximately equal to 10130, that is, 1 followed by 130 zeros. So we have 10130 possibilities, but only one combination is the right one for a given protein.

Is it reasonable to believe that such a protein could have formed by chance during the history of the universe? The odds against such an event are beyond astronomical.

Source: The Plain Truth, 1983

Eye Opening Proof: Evolution Did Not Occur!

http://www.ryanphotographic.com

“That…eye…the human eye,”complained one science writer while attempting to justify the theory of evolution. How can anything so intricate and complex as the human eye, he asked, have evolved? He posed the question, but he could give no adequate answer. The best he could do for his readers was to make a hazy suggestion as to how he thought evolution “could have”occurred.

Charles Darwin himself struggled with the eye problem. He wrote in a private letter of a time when “the thought of the eye made me cold all over”(Letter to Asa Gray, April 3, 1860).

In his work, “The Origin Of Species,”Darwin conceded: “To suppose the eye with all its imitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Absurd indeed! There is no way to account for the existence of such an engineering marvel as the human eye by a slow process of chance natural selections. All of the vital parts of the eye have to be present and functioning if sight is to be possible. Nowhere in nature can there be found developing non-working eyes. Even the so called primitive eyes of lower life forms are complete and able to perform exactly as designed. Their intricacy varies from that of their human counterparts only by degree.

Consider for a moment, how marvelously made are the masterpieces through which you are now reading this. The part of the eye that is visible is only a portion of a gel-filled globe set in a protective socket of the skull. Enclosing the gel are three major layers of tissue. The tough fibrous outer layer is the sclera. What is seen in front as the white of the eye is part of this layer. Also part of the sclera is transparent covering (cornea) over the opening or pupil of the eye.

Just inside the sclera is a layer of blood-vessel rich tissue. And within that is the layer known as the retina, upon which images are formed much as they are formed on film in a camera.

Light enters by way of the pupil and passes through an adjustable lens that focuses the light rays onto the retina. The human retina contains some1.3 million light-sensitive cells – the rods and cones, so named because of their shapes. Different ones of these cells react to different luminous intensities and colours. These cells pick up the light stimulus and translate it by a photo-chemical process into nerve impulses that travel to the brain. The impulses become vivid, colourful, moving, three dimensional mental images capable even of being stored for future recollections.

The eye is an incredibly intricate mechanism. Just how complex can be realized by checking a reference work such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, where in the 15th edition, a discussion of the eye and sight fills more than 34 pages. The highly diversified and specialized parts of the eye – the muscles, ligaments, tissues, fluids, canals, nerves, pigments, blood vessels – all work together to produce sight. This complex organ could not have developed gradually to fill a creative need.

If the entire eye were present except for the lens, the eye would not work. If it were all there but the retina, there would be no sight. All the vital parts have to be in place or the eye is useless. This is a real problem for evolutionists, since the theory of natural selection holds that creatures evolve only what is of immediate benefit.

In other words, evolutionists themselves must admit that animal life forms cannot blindly look two generations, three generations or more into the future, contemplate needs, establish goals and work towards them. Evolution cannot plan ahead. It lacks the foresight.

The arrangement of creatures in the so-called evolutionary tree simply does not show a long, slow development of the eye, with splendidly working mechanisms, interspersed with transitional-phase, non-functioning, defective eyes. Each creature has been given eyes which perfectly satisfy its needs.

An oyster doesn’t have to be able to watch TV in order to survive, but it does need to be able to detect passing shadows. So it has been given small, sensitive spots which can detect changes in the intensity of light. They may be called “simple,”but the oyster’s sensitive spots are complete. They work and fulfill the oyster’s needs as is proved by the fact that oysters are a thriving species.

Nor can all eyes in smaller lifeforms be called “simple.” According to the evolutionary concept, one would not expect a small tropical minnow like anableps, for example, to have the uniquely complicated eyes it has. it actually has what amounts to four eyes, because each of its two apparant eyes has two separate corneas and two separate retines. As the anableps swims along the surface of the water, one section of each eye looks up with a special flattened lens suitable for viewing in the air, while the other section peers down into the water with an oval lens such as other fish have. A true engineering marvel.

It is impossible to account for the eyes of any creature great or small by a process of Darwinian evolution. It is equally impossible to explain them by blind, random mutations, quantum leaps or any other humanly devised theory. It took the great creator God to skillfully design and make the eye.

As the scripture says: “…he that formed the eye, shall he not see?…he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man (like the evolutionary theory), that they are vanity”(Ps. 94:9-11).

The marvelous human eye is God’s workmanship. The evidence is obvious and there for all to look at. But, as has often been said, there is none so blind as he who will not see.

Source: The Plain Truth, August 1983